There are a vast array of many complex explanations concerning Darwinian evolution, many of which get falsified down the road with better data. As a result, evolution in biology gets murky rather than clearer. The emergence of diverse forms of living things has been firmly fixed in Darwinian dogma for the last 150 years. But now it’s become a “puzzle” according to science daily which elaborates on this dilemma…
“Biologists have long thought that interactions between plants and pollinating insects hasten evolutionary changes and promote biological diversity. However, new findings show that some interactions between plants and pollinators are less likely to increase diversity than previously thought, and in some instances, reduce it.”
Researchers found by studying specialized moths that pollinate the Joshua tree reveal a contradiction in evolutionary expectations, “no evidence that local populations of moths adapt to local populations of Joshua trees.” It took 150 years to find this out. One researcher boasted that the discovery verified his own theory which is perhaps one of the reasons why he was conducting this research in the first place but opposite conclusions within a particular framework such as Darwinian evolution is not good science.
Then he concludes his evolutionary story, “But different interactions can have very different effects — some increase diversity, some don’t increase diversity at all, and some can even reduce diversity.” Where’s the proof? This expectation hasn’t been throughly tested at all, it’s another falsification waiting to happen.
Evolutionists have long thought they knew the reason why some plants, such as cacti and grasses, use an alternative form of photosynthesis called C4. According to a new study reported in physorg, their conclusion was wrong…
“A new analysis of fossilized grass-pollen grains deposited on ancient European lake and sea bottoms 16-35 million years ago reveals that C4 grasses evolved earlier than previously thought. This new evidence casts doubt on the widely-held belief that the rise of this incredibly productive group of plants was driven by a large drop in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations during the Oligocene epoch…”
In other words, the evolutionary framework by which they are going by is not making any sense which happens a lot with better data…“The idea that C4 grasses originated prior to global decreases in carbon dioxide levels requires us to reevaluate the way we think about the evolution of C4 photosynthesis,” Dr. David Nelson said.
Where is the evidence that proves “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”? Where is the light? Where is the sense? These new discoveries are very common in evolutionary research papers. A good theory obtains clarity with better data even though it may not have all the answers, a bad ‘theory’ in this case, evolution which obtains more complexity as a result of numerous falsifications